Steve:
One more time: the reason given for removal of Section 11 was that the results of the straw polls could have been misunderstood as an 802.11 position. Appendix D is clearly labeled as the opinion of the USDOT, and therefore is not in the same category as Section 11.
There is no reason to remove it at this time. You can vote against the document if you disagree, but should not be subjecting it to further revisions.
Rich Kennedy
Manager, New Technology Development
MediaTek Inc.
rich.kennedy@mediatek.com
(832) 298-1114
Wi-Fi Alliance Spectrum & Regulatory TG Chair
Wi-Fi Alliance White Spaces TTG Chair
Wi-Fi Alliance White Spaces MTG Vice-chair
IEEE802.11 TGaf (WLAN in White Spaces) Chair
IEEE802.11/15 Regulatory SC Chair
IEEE 802.11/18 Liaison
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Shellhammer, Steve
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 11:43 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] 802.11 Regulatory Standing Committee DSRC Tiger Team ad hoc timeline
Mike,
I cannot support approval of document IEEE 802.18-15/16r1. It contains Appendix D which provides the opinion of the US DOT regarding the two proposals. It is my understanding that the Tiger Team never reviewed that appendix. Also, the opinions of that appendix are the opposite of those expressed by the members of the IEEE 802.11 regulatory standing committee, as shown in the straw poll taken at the March Plenary. I do not think the IEEE should approve a document which does not have the support of its members. If another organization (e.g. DOT) has a position they can express it to the FCC through their own submission, it should not be submitted by the IEEE when the two groups have different positions.
At the 802.18 meeting in Berlin a similar section (Section 11) was removed since there were a number of members who opposed it. If the meeting had not been so rushed I think the group would not have missed removing Appendix D, but time was short and so it got missed at the time.
I could support a motion to approve a revised version of the document with Appendix D removed.
Regards,
Steve
I would vote Disapprove on this motion simply based on these issues:
*The language on the slide has been documented as false (in that the RR-TAG did not approve version of the report being proposed for approval).
*It's written as two motions, but it will presumably be one vote.
*The first of these motions is full of ambiguous clutter that makes it unclear whether we are approving a document as it exists or whether we are approving further revisions to that document.
*The second of these motions is to approve a cover letter that was written before we spent weeks trying to figure out what's going on here.
*The Chair is granted editorial privileges. If the Chair has editorial preferences, he can make those known when the draft is prepared for ballot.
This proposal just returns us to the mess of March 13. After all this discussion and "clarification", let's vote on a motion to approve a specific report document and a specific cover letter document, period.
Roger
Paul Nikolich wrote:
The cover letter needs significant improvement and the motion should include background as part of the motion in a 'whereas' preamble. I specifically think the preamble should capture the essence of James' 02APR email, which I believe is an accurate summary of the situation. I will then be able to use a derivative of the preamble for the cover letter.
------ Original Message ------
Sent: 4/8/2015 2:07:47 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] 802.11 Regulatory Standing Committee DSRC Tiger Team ad hoc timeline
Paul,
Please find attached the draft motion. I just realized that Apurva is still listed as the second but that can be changed, if necessary, as the ballot progresses.
I did presume that everyone on the EC has read the timeline that you sent. To make things simpler in Mentor I have created a new document number that is only for the draft motion, 18-15-0023-00. Much of the text is taken from what Apurva and I created during the EC closing meeting in Berlin.
Please note that in the coming week I will be traveling back to Europe and may be offline for two days.
Best regards,
Mike
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Paul Nikolich
Sent: 7 April, 2015 11:47
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] 802.11 Regulatory Standing Committee DSRC Tiger Team ad hoc timeline
Please consider the updated time line document I just posted and all the EC discussion on this matter to date and prepare a draft motion you believe will gain EC approval. Then send the draft motion to EC reflector for review and comment before crafting final motion text and obtain a second.
------ Original Message ------
Sent: 4/1/2015 12:07:36 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] 802.11 Regulatory Standing Committee DSRC Tiger Team ad hoc timeline
Paul,
During the last portion of the EC closing Apurva and I did develop a revised motion which was never presented. Do you want that motion to be presented for an EC email ballot? Do you want to review it prior to starting an EC email ballot? In any case I'll need to get back to the laptop that I used in Berlin later today.
BR,
Mike
Sent from my Windows 8.1 Phone
Paul:
One needed clarification. During the 802.18 meeting where the document was edited and then approved, the edited version of 11-15/0347r0 was saved as 18-15/16r0. This is the document 802.18 approved.
Rich Kennedy
Manager, New Technology Development
MediaTek Inc.
rich.kennedy@mediatek.com
(832) 298-1114
Wi-Fi Alliance Spectrum & Regulatory TG Chair
Wi-Fi Alliance White Spaces TTG Chair
Wi-Fi Alliance White Spaces MTG Vice-chair
IEEE802.11 TGaf (WLAN in White Spaces) Chair
IEEE802.11/15 Regulatory SC Chair
IEEE 802.11/18 Liaison
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Paul Nikolich
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2015 10:28 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [802SEC] 802.11 Regulatory Standing Committee DSRC Tiger Team ad hoc timeline
Please review, correct errors and suggest enhancements. It is important that we have an accurate context in which to make a decision on this pending matter.
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.